Today's Daily News cover for 3rd anniversary of Newtown CT shooting

[ErikJ]

Last edited Mon Dec 14, 2015, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

[hack89]

1. Their trade group is headquartered in Newtown

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the gun industry’s trade group. The region has a long history of gun manufacturing.

[smirkymonkey]

2. The Daily News is on a roll!

[AwakeAtLast]

4. You bet they are!

Let me join you

[2naSalit]

3. Hope they keep up the pressure

while encouraging other news outlets to do the same.

[liberalhistorian]

5. I'm really glad to see this.

It's not just the complete stranglehold that the NRA and gun manufacturers lobby has on this country and its politicians that sickens and infuriates me, it's also the tremendous profits made by those who manufacture and sell death and injury--oh, excuse me, I just meant guns--and who actually rejoice after evey mass shooting and all the blood we're swimming in because it means even more profits.

But try to get people to see this, and all they see is that you're trying to take profits away from a business and that is "socialist", the usual rot.

[ErikJ]

6. Or they blame Obama

their propaganda meme now is that "Obama is the best gun salesman in the country". Gun sales surge after his speeches after mass shootings so they blame him. Obama's comin fer r gunz!!

[lapislzi]

7. Today is a difficult day

My colleague and work friend lost his son in the shooting. It is very somber and subdued here in the office. People are having trouble coping.

Every time there is a mass shooting, my friend diminishes a little more. He is not at the office today, and he was not here last Friday. Fridays are hard.

I will have to go out and do some good deed for someone to make myself feel better about humanity.

[fleur-de-lisa]

8. Your post made me cry . . . I am so sorry for your community.

[snacker]

11. I remember your post here on DU on that day

about your colleague who got the news of the shooting and ran out of the building. I have thought about your friend and colleague so often since that day. I can't imagine the pain he and his family have and continue to endure. So much sadness.

[hibbing]

14. Damn

How horrible, and I can't even imagine the office there as it is certainly remembered by all. I like your thought of doing a good deed for someone.

Peace

[liberalhistorian]

20. I also remember your posting here on that horrible day,

while it was still happening and before you knew for certain what had happened with your colleague's child. I remember we were all desperately praying and hoping that the worst had not happened to the child, and the horror and shock when you came back to post that the worst, had, indeed, happened. The pain and grief of your colleague and all the parents must be more than they can bear at times; I don't even know how they're managing it.

It has to be made worse by the goddamn "truthers" who insist that it's all made up and they never suffered such losses (the one who calls up the parents screaming at them that they're liars and hoaxers really makes me wish I weren't an anti-violence pacifist), and by the continued complete lack of action and caring by a society and culture that has deemed the right to own any kind of gun, of any number and anywhere for any reason to be far more important than human lives, particularly those of young children. I will NEVER understand it, I just won't. Gun humpers, don't even bother right now.

[AngryOldDem]

82. My heart breaks for you and your colleague.

That's really all I can say.

Peace.

[adigal]

86. I can't even imagine...prayers to him. I think for me to survive something like that

I would have to devote the rest of my life to changing the laws. Because "real life" would just have no more meaning.

[ellenrr]

9. wow, that's impressive , esp for the daily news. nt

[Straw Man]

13. You have no idea ...

... how many guns these headlines sell.

[liberalhistorian]

24. And that is truly emblematic of just how

unbelievably sick our society really is.

[deathrind]

10. Good Article from RS...back in Oct.

4. "Second Amendment, baby."

"Here's a good time to remind everyone that the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity, much less the kind of weaponry that would-be murderers can buy today. But sure, if you think it's that precious, we can compromise: If you love the Second Amendment that much, feel free to live in a powdered wig and shit in a chamberpot while trying to survive off what you can kill with an 18th century musket. In exchange, let those of us living in this century pass some laws so we can feel safe going to class, or the movies, or anywhere without worrying that some maladjusted man will try to get his revenge by raining death on random strangers."


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2


Another article...the stark reality.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/2015-the-year-in-mass-shootings-20151203?page=5

[Straw Man]

12. Um ...

"Here's a good time to remind everyone that the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity..."

... the same could be said for the entire Constitution.

[Hissyspit]

15. Yes, and...?

[deathrind]

16. The entire document was...

Not sure what your point is.

[Straw Man]

18. It's really very simple ...

"Here's a good time to remind everyone that the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity..."

Yes, and...?

The entire document was...

Not sure what your point is.

If those are the reasons we should disregard the Second Amendment, then we should disregard the entire Constitution.

I thought that was obvious.

[kcr]

26. Hmmm. if only there was a way to change only part of something

without changing the whole thing. Such a shame that's impossible! If there were, I wonder what that would be called?

[Straw Man]

28. You missed the point entirely.

Hmmm. if only there was a way to change only part of something

without changing the whole thing. Such a shame that's impossible! If there were, I wonder what that would be called?

If her point was to criticize the Second Amendment, she shouldn't have cited a condition that applies to the entire document. I'm not the one with the broad brush here.

If the word you're searching for is "amendment," you're off base again. I believe "repeal" is the one that applies, and your avatar depicts when it will happen.

[kcr]

29. Is the entire document about guns?

Huh. Learn something every day.

[Straw Man]

32. You missed it again. The point, I mean.

Is the entire document about guns?

No. Was only the gun part "written by slaveholders before we had electricity"? No again. The whole thing was.

If that's the criticism, why should it apply only to the gun part? The parts about "cruel and unusual punishment" and "unreasonable searches and seizures" were also "written by slaveholders before we had electricity." Does that invalidate them too?

[kcr]

34. Point not missed. What do you think the word Amendment means?

Unless the entire document is about guns, you don't have a point. Unless you're arguing that if you discount one thing, you have to discount everything, and if you accept one part you have to accept all. In which case you're just plain wrong. See: Amendments. There is no reason why one can't argue that the creators of a document were wrong on one specific point because they didn't have foresight. Particularly when that document has changed on more than one occasion.

[Straw Man]

38. It has nothing to do with amendments.

Unless the entire document is about guns, you don't have a point.

It has to do with one of the writer's justification for dismissing the Second Amendment. If the reason she doesn't like it is that it was "written by slaveholders," she's a hypocrite for accepting the rest of it, which was equally "written by slaveholders." If she finds something else uniquely objectionable about the Second Amendment, that's fine, but it's starting to look as though the only reason the "slaveholders and electricity" argument is valid for you and her is "because gunz."

Unless you're arguing that if you discount one thing, you have to discount everything, and if you accept one part you have to accept all.

If your rationale for discounting that one thing applies equally to everything, then, yes, you have to discount everything. Either that or admit that your rationale is invalid. It's really very simple logic.

I'm not telling you that you and she can't object to the Second Amendment, or that parts of the Constitution can't be selectively supported or opposed; I'm telling that the particular rationale under discussion is fatally flawed.

[kcr]

39. Oh? I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about an Amendment

Seriously, though. Why does the writer have to dismiss the entire constitution if they discount one part of it? If that weren't possible, there would be no Amendments. So, you wouldn't even have a 2A to defend.

[Straw Man]

41. It has to do with the justifications given ...

Seriously, though. Why does the writer have to dismiss the entire constitution if they discount one part of it?

She doesn't. She just has to find a justification for that discounting that doesn't apply equally to the rest of it -- something unique about the Second Amendment that justifies scrapping that and keeping the rest. "Written by slaveholders" doesn't meet that standard. Capisci?

If that weren't possible, there would be no Amendments. So, you wouldn't even have a 2A to defend.

Amendments need unique and specific justifications. So does repeal. The writer's brush was ludicrously broad.

[kcr]

42. But it doesn't apply equally to the rest of it, because the whole thing isn't about guns.

The objections are specific to guns and how they have changed since the 2nd was written. You don't have to think that they're wrong on the 5th because they were wrong on the 2nd.

[Straw Man]

43. So use a criticism about guns.

Not an ad hominem against the writers of the entire document.

The objections are specific to guns and how they have changed since the 2nd was written. You don't have to think that they're wrong on the 5th because they were wrong on the 2nd.

The criticism "written by slaveholders" is not specific to guns; it's about the people who wrote the entire document. Do you think they freed their slaves in between writing the Second and Fifth amendments? Somewhere around the Third or Fourth perhaps?

No. They were slaveholders when they wrote all those amendments. It neither validates nor invalidates any one of the amendments. You need a specific rationale that is unique to the amendment you are criticizing.

It's really that simple.

[kcr]

44. Statements of fact are not ad hominem

Unless you mean to say that they actually didn't live in the 18th century or own slaves? And the writer did use a statement about guns. It's right there, literally the word "guns" appears.

[Straw Man]

45. They most certainly are, or can be.

Statements of fact are not ad hominem

Ad hominem merely means that you are attacking the person and not the person's argument.

[kcr]

46. Yes, but the word attack is key. Without attack, there is no ad hominem

And I fail to see how expressing the opinion that something from the past does not apply to today is a personal attack.

[Straw Man]

48. Without attack?

Yes, but the word attack is key. Without attack, there is no ad hominem

Are you of the opinion that "slaveholder" is a term of endearment nowadays?

And I fail to see how expressing the opinion that something from the past does not apply to today is a personal attack.

It's all about why it doesn't apply today. If the answer is "because it was written by slaveholders," inquiring minds will say, "Hmm ... I wonder what else was written by slaveholders?"

[kcr]

50. But they were slaveholders

They were actually slaveholders. Didn't you know?

[Straw Man]

52. Of course they were. Do you think that's a good thing to be? I don't.

But they were slaveholders

They were actually slaveholders. Didn't you know?

Do you think the Rolling Stone writer was saying it neutrally? C'mon now.

It was said to indicate that we shouldn't be so concerned with what they said or thought, because, after all ... "They were slaveholders, y'know."

[kcr]

54. So, because I think their slaveholder status was relevant to guns, that means I think it's good?

Doesn't compute. Sorry.

[Straw Man]

56. You're trying to argue that "slaveholder" is not an ad hominem.

And you're failing. Sorry.

[kcr]

58. So they wren't slaveholders?

I think you want to recheck that.

[Straw Man]

61. Please don't try to pretend I ever said that.

So they wren't slaveholders?

I think you want to recheck that.

Yes, they were slaveholders. That was never -- I repeat NEVER -- in dispute. Where do you even get such a notion?

[kcr]

62. When you claimed the person stating that fact was making an ad hominem

I have no idea why anyone would think that was an ad hominem unless they thought it was a false accusation. You're not attacking a slaveholder by calling them one. They were, in fact, slaveholders.

[Straw Man]

64. Please look up ad hominem.

I have no idea why anyone would think that was an ad hominem unless they thought it was a false accusation.

An ad hominem does not have to be false. That's a misconception on your part.

[kcr]

67. The definition does not say that all facts are ad hominem

There are other distinguishing factors. I notice you still haven't explained how their being slaveholders was irrelevant.

[Straw Man]

69. What?

The definition does not say that all facts are ad hominem

There are other distinguishing factors.

Umm ... What are you talking about? Of course they aren't. Ad hominems are personal attacks, whether true or not, that are used to divert attention from the content of the person's position and place it instead on the person's character. It's a fallacy in argumentation, but that doesn't mean the facts of the attack are necessarily untrue.

I notice you still haven't explained how their being slaveholders was irrelevant.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it wasn't the rationale for the Second Amendment. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and make your case.

[kcr]

70. How is stating someone is a slaveholder when they actually are a personal attack?

I think it's very easy to make the case. Slavery would have been much harder to pull off without guns. So their status as slaveholders was every bit relevant. One can't help but notice that particular bias. So not a personal attack to point that out.

[Straw Man]

73. So you read it as neutral?

I think it's very easy to make the case.

Except she never makes it. She just rambles on about "powdered wigs" and "shitting in chamberpots" and "18-century muskets."

Slavery would have been much harder to pull off without guns.

Really? The Romans managed it pretty well, as did pretty much every civilization before the invention of firearms.

So their status as slaveholders was every bit relevant. One can't help but notice that particular bias. So not a personal attack to point that out.

So why doesn't she make the case? She never connects the two: it's a blunt-instrument attack.

[kcr]

75. So, you wanted it explained specifically how slavery was bad?

I guess I just thought that was a settled matter. I'm sure the author made that same mistake. And I guess the guns were just for decoration.

[Straw Man]

77. No, just specifically how it related to the Second Amendment.

So, you wanted it explained specifically how slavery was bad?

I guess I just thought that was a settled matter. I'm sure the author made that same mistake.

Remember the Second Amendment? The task is to connect it to slavery. You made a weak attempt. The Rolling Stone author didn't even try.

Your snark is getting in the way of your rhetorical ability. It doesn't help you -- really it doesn't. It just highlights the failures.

[kcr]

78. I couldn't help it.

It was hard to take the argument that we were hurting the poor widdle slaveholders feewings with an adhominem attack seriously. Because I just can't. Sorry.

[Straw Man]

79. I see you still don't understand ad hominem.

It was hard to take the argument that we were hurting the poor widdle slaveholders feewings with an adhominem attack seriously. Because I just can't. Sorry.

It has nothing to do with anybody's feelings. The slaveholders are long dead. Ad hominem is a rhetorical fallacy. It weakens arguments -- yours and the Rolling Stone writer's in this case.

But you're right -- you can't help it. That's OK. If it's more important to you to be snarky than to be effective, that's your choice to make. Just don't expect anybody to take you seriously.

[kcr]

80. I'm sure a lot of people now believe that calling slaveholders slaveholders

is an ad hominem attack because of your arguments. Let's get right on getting that word banned from the books.

[Straw Man]

81. It depends on why you do it.

I'm sure a lot of people now believe that calling slaveholders slaveholders

is an ad hominem attack because of your arguments. Let's get right on getting that word banned from the books.

What word is it you want to ban? Ad hominem? Slaveholders? What's your point?

OK, I'll try again. Let's say there's man who has been convicted of molesting children. If I say "He's a child molester," that's not an ad hominem. If I say "Don't hire him as a school-crossing guard -- he's a child molester," that's not an ad hominem. If he says "I support the Second Amendment," and I say "Don't listen to him -- he's a child molester," THAT'S an ad hominem. Does that make it any clearer?

It's all about relevance, you see. And neither you nor the Rolling Stone writer has established that.

[Straw Man]

47. Once more, with feeling.

And the writer did use a statement about guns. It's right there, literally the word "guns" appears.

"Here's a good time to remind everyone that the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity, much less the kind of weaponry that would-be murderers can buy today. But sure, if you think it's that precious, we can compromise: If you love the Second Amendment that much, feel free to live in a powdered wig and shit in a chamberpot while trying to survive off what you can kill with an 18th century musket. In exchange, let those of us living in this century pass some laws so we can feel safe going to class, or the movies, or anywhere without worrying that some maladjusted man will try to get his revenge by raining death on random strangers."

Perhaps we have different definitions of "literally," you and I, but I don't see the word "guns" in there. But yes, there are references to "weaponry" and "musket."

However, nobody, least of all me, is saying that the writer doesn't have lots of bad things to say about guns and the Second Amendment. But "written by slaveholders" isn't a valid criticism of that particular amendment unless she is trying to convince us that only the Second Amendment, and not the rest of the Constitution was "written by slaveholders." You wouldn't be trying to make that particular claim, would you?

[kcr]

49. What? Even the title of the article has the word gun in it.

[Straw Man]

51. I'm not talking about the whole article.

What? Even the title of the article has the word gun in it.

I'm talking about the specific assertion that the Second Amendment deserves our scorn because it was "written by slaveholders." Can we at least agree that that is precisely what I have been saying throughout the tedious entirety of this exchange?

[kcr]

53. Oh, I know exactly what you've been saying.

The gist is you think calling out their slave holding status with respect to guns isn't fair. But yet I can't help but notice you don't argue why that fact is actually irrelevant when it comes to guns. How do you think slaveholders held slaves against their will? Just curious.

[Straw Man]

55. No, you don't. You really don't.

Oh, I know exactly what you've been saying.

The gist is you think calling out their slave holding status with respect to guns isn't fair.

Only if you don't call it out in reference to anything else. They were slaveholders throughout.

But yet I can't help but notice you don't argue why that fact is actually irrelevant when it comes to guns. How do you think slaveholders held slaves against their will? Just curious.

With guns, dogs, whips, chains, and all the other appurtenances of that ghastly institution, I'm sure. But if that were the rationale for the Second Amendment, shouldn't it have been made explicit? And shouldn't the Amendment have then vanished with the abolition of slavery?

How do you think the colonists defeated the British Army and established a Republic that, while flawed, still offered a greater promise of freedom and opportunity than anything in Europe at the time? Just curious.

[kcr]

57. Well, they wren't alive for the whole thing, so it wouldn't make sense

The 13th Amendment, for example.

[Straw Man]

59. Main document and the Bill of Rights.

Slaveholders throughout.

[kcr]

60. Oh, so the 13th isn't Constitutional enough. Disregard the amendment that corrected THAT mistake.

Pretty creative placement of goal posts, there.

[Straw Man]

63. I'm not the one moving the goalposts.

Oh, so the 13th isn't Constitutional enough. Disregard the amendment that corrected THAT mistake.

Pretty creative placement of goal posts, there.

I was merely stating which parts of the document were "written by slaveholders." That's the territory that was laid out in the RS article.

[kcr]

65. So, you didn't actually mean the entire consitution

"If those are the reasons we should disregard the Second Amendment, then we should disregard the entire Constitution." Your words, copy and pasted from post. You might have wanted to make that more clear.

[Straw Man]

66. No, just the part that was

You know -- the part we've been talking about all along? The Constitution as it existed in the 18th century. Remember? The Fourth, the Fifth, all those other amendments that you don't want to throw out?

[kcr]

68. You might want to look up the word entire n/t

[Straw Man]

71. Is this a "gotcha" moment for you?

You must be so proud. But did you actually think I meant that the 13th was written by slaveholders? That would be foolish.

[kcr]

72. Yep. It sure is.

I didn't think you meant it was written by them. I just think it was convenient to chop that bit off that shows how majorly wrong they were on that subject.

[Straw Man]

76. Enjoy it.

I just think it was convenient to chop that bit off that shows how majorly wrong they were on that subject.

But I'm calling bullshit on that one. I called it a "ghastly institution," and you accuse me of trying to downplay "how majorly wrong they were on that subject"? C'mon now. Play fair.

[NBachers]

105. This is the point where I click the "Back" button and go look for something else to read.

You've highjacked the thread and made it useless. I'm not wasting any more time here.

[Straw Man]

108. Feel free to ignore anything you don't want to read.

No one is forcing you. But I'm interested in the notion that my adding my opinion to the thread has made it "useless." How does that work? Certainly you could find something here that you agree with, even if you disagree with me.

[leeroysphitz]

97. Waters = muddied. Good job with your pointless nitpicking. Yay for you. n/t

[Straw Man]

106. The waters were already muddy.

I merely pointed it out. Pardon me.

[packman]

107. Sorry, don't say this often - But that's an idiotic statement

"If those are the reasons we should disregard the Second Amendment, then we should disregard the entire Constitution. "

[Straw Man]

109. Only because you don't understand it.

"If those are the reasons we should disregard the Second Amendment, then we should disregard the entire Constitution. "

The same slaveholders wrote the main document and the Bill of Rights. How can we invalidate the Second solely because it was "written by slaveholders," since those same slaveholders wrote all the rest?

You'll need to make the argument pertinent to the Second. The writer doesn't do so.

[deathrind]

112. I did not write the article...

It is obvious what the article specifically is addressing and why the writer worded it as they did.

[Straw Man]

116. I was referring to a specific point ...

... which is that the Second Amendment is invalid because "it was written by slaveholders." I simply pointed out that the same applies to the main document and the rest of the Bill of Rights, yet we take them as valid. She never explicitly makes the case that the Second somehow supported slavery. Pretty big rhetorical failure, don't you think?

[deathrind]

121. I understand your point...

And the writer could have done a much better job of wording that paragraph or at least tying into the reason for the wording that is used.

I believe the point the writer was trying to convey is that as a society we have evolved slavery is no longer the norm and is now looked upon with disdain and is a non-removable stain on our history. Also that technically we have evolved as well that we no longer light a candle to light a room (out of necessity) when the sun goes down, we simply flip the switch.

Metaphorically speaking it was not the best way to start the paragraph but the point remains. That the second amendment as written is out of date with today's world and needs to evolve. There are other amendments that fall into the same category as being outdated such as the 3rd amendment, granted there could be an extreme case where soldiers need to be quartered into a person home but that would be a very extreme case and not likely to happen short of some catastrophic event. Other amendments are today as valid as they were when written the 15th for example. Not that the entire document is invalid.

[Straw Man]

123. Thanks.

I understand your point...

Finally someone does!

I believe the point the writer was trying to convey is that as a society we have evolved slavery is no longer the norm and is now looked upon with disdain and is a non-removable stain on our history. Also that technically we have evolved as well that we no longer light a candle to light a room (out of necessity) when the sun goes down, we simply flip the switch.

That may well be, but the fact remains that the writer fails to make that point. Overall, I find it an ill-conceived and sloppy piece of smash-mouth tabloid journalism. But that's just me ...

Obviously I"m going to disagree with your point about the Second Amendment being out of date, but I'd like to thank you for the calm and respectful manner in which you have expressed and supported your opinion. Cheers!

[liberalhistorian]

21. As a historian and former legal worker

married to an attorney, I know that the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment is NOT historically what was intended by the framers. They were talking about the necessity of gun ownership for state MILITIAS, which, at that time, were the common form of defense. They weren't referring to individual ownership, and certainly not as it's intended nowadays. You know, those pesky little words about a "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA". You guns uber alles worshippers so conveniently forget that.

"A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free state". Somehow, you people conveniently completely forget the first part of the amendment.

[Straw Man]

25. Pardon me ...

As a historian and former legal worker

married to an attorney, I know that the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment is NOT historically what was intended by the framers. They were talking about the necessity of gun ownership for state MILITIAS, which, at that time, were the common form of defense.

... for not taking what you "know" as the definitive word on the matter. Please cite case law that shows the right to keep and bear arms as being limited to militia service exclusively. If that has been the law of the land for 225 years, surely there must be precedent.

The militia clause states the rationale for an armed citizenry, not a limitation on it.

[mnhtnbb]

87. Ah, yes, but the point is The Constitution has been amended to give full rights

to African-Americans and to women, and to change their relationship as property
of white males or controlled by husbands/fathers.

There is NO good reason the Second Amendment cannot be changed. None.
It simply requires the will of the people to rise up and demand change.

[Straw Man]

89. Yes, to give full rights.

Ah, yes, but the point is The Constitution has been amended to give full rights

to African-Americans and to women, and to change their relationship as property
of white males or controlled by husbands/fathers.

Yes -- it has been amended to give rights. And now you want to amend it to take away rights.

There is NO good reason the Second Amendment cannot be changed. None.
It simply requires the will of the people to rise up and demand change.

The is no compelling reason that it should be changed. Constitutional change was made difficult for a reason. And I think you're drastically misreading the will of the people.

[mnhtnbb]

98. No. Any person wanting to serve with a State Militia (National Guard these days)

will be issued appropriate firearms. We've come a long way, baby.

[Straw Man]

100. Sorry -- your interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong.

No. Any person wanting to serve with a State Militia (National Guard these days)

will be issued appropriate firearms. We've come a long way, baby.

The individual right has been upheld. In any case, no matter how you spin a denial of rights, it remains a denial of rights.

[mnhtnbb]

101. The Constitution can be amended. I'll stand my ground on that one. It only takes

the will of the people to decide that enough is enough.

Slave holders weren't happy when they no longer had cheap labor. Men weren't
happy when women were afforded the right to vote--and still in this country--
do not have equal rights.

Gun advocates won't be happy when their access to guns is restricted. But there
is no doubt in my mind that the mechanism exists to do so. It just takes will
and determination.

[Straw Man]

102. Of course it can.

The Constitution can be amended. I'll stand my ground on that one.

Slaveholders were a minority, even in the South. It's a miracle that the institution of slavery lasted as long as it did, given the moral outrage it represented to anyone of conscience.

Gun possession? Not so much. The numbers and attitudes are entirely different. You are seriously misreading the "will of the people." And by the way, access to guns is already restricted in a number of ways, and has been for quite some time. You're asking for a lot more than than restriction, aren't you?

[mnhtnbb]

113. Indeed. We have no need for more guns than people in this country. It's definitely a health hazard.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

[Straw Man]

117. Nice graph.

But it doesn't speak to "the will of the people" in the way you'd like it to. If fact, it suggests quite the opposite.

[mnhtnbb]

118. Common mistake. Estimates of the number of people who own guns is quite different...

in other words, many guns are owned by a single individual.

Maybe a third of people in the US own guns. That's NOT the majority. And they
are owned for different reasons.

A new study aimed at figuring out who owns gun in the United States and why suggests that about a third of Americans have at least one.

Most are white males over the age of 55, and a "gun culture" is closely linked with ownership, the team at Columbia University reports.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031

Oh, gee. There it is again...those older white males. Damn. They don't like that black guy in the Oval Office. They don't like
women making their own health care decisions. They don't like immigrants with dark skin and a different religion and...well, whatever it is that challenges their prerogative to be in charge.

What a surprise.

But, guess what? Older white males are NOT in the majority and that is why the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution
will eventually be changed. When? I don't know. But it will happen. That's why all these older white males are fighting back
so hard. It's tough to no longer have power over everything.

[Straw Man]

119. Nobody said ...

... that only gun owners oppose the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Your other genetic fallacies are irrelevant. Rights are rights.

[mnhtnbb]

120. You are making me LOL. Seriously.

But, you gotta' know that for me, shooting means taking my camera out
to capture an image, a moment, a bit of light and life.

Guns are not meant for that: they are meant for killing.

My husband was an occasional duck hunter for many years. He still has a shotgun. And yes, he's an older
white male. But he would also tell you he has no need for a pistol or an assault rifle. He's also a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst
and can tell you that there are a LOT of people in this country who should not have access to firearms.

[Straw Man]

122. You're easily amused.

Last edited Tue Dec 15, 2015, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Guns are not meant for that: they are meant for killing.

None of my guns are meant for that. You may have trouble understanding it, but it's true.

My husband was an occasional duck hunter for many years. He still has a shotgun. And yes, he's an older
white male.

So by your prior logic, his opinions too should be discredited because he's soon to be in the minority? Right?

But he would also tell you he has no need for a pistol or an assault rifle.

He's perfectly free not to own one, then -- but not to make that determination for someone else. In any case, "need" is irrelevant in a discussion of rights. After all, no one "needs" to vote, right? Many people live happily their entire lives without ever doing it.

He's also a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst and can tell you that there are a LOT of people in this country who should not have access to firearms.

If you mean people who have been adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others, then I wholeheartedly agree. That's what you meant, right? Otherwise you're suggesting that your husband's profession qualifies him to deny rights to those he disagrees with politically, and that's some pretty dangerous ground.

[snort]

90. Gun Humper:

Identified!

[Straw Man]

93. Is this what they mean ...

Gun Humper:

Identified!

... when they say we need to have a "national conversation" about guns?

[snort]

94. Nope. This is what they mean by going to a Waltz.

You can spin or sit, either way you're hearing the music.

You want conversation? Okay: BANG BANG BANG! BANG BANG! (But that may sound like music to some.)

[Straw Man]

95. Confirmed: you have no interest in discussing anything.

Nope. This is what they mean by going to a Waltz.

You can spin or sit, either way you're hearing the music.

You want conversation? Okay: BANG BANG BANG! BANG BANG! (But that may sound like music to some.)

You're just here to make noise.

[snort]

96. And you are 'hear' to say:

"You can't get there from here". That's a brochure on a rack in the NRA front lobby. All you have is flummery, so back at you.

[Straw Man]

99. Thanks for the correction.

"You can't get there from here". That's a brochure on a rack in the NRA front lobby. All you have is flummery, so back at you.

I'm not here to call anybody names. I came here to make a point and engage in a discussion. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but call me names

Perhaps you think you have the right to do that from some imagined moral high ground. You're wrong. You don't.

[snort]

103. One name:

Gun Humper.

By the way, I own several firearms. I support amending the Constitution. Next?

[Straw Man]

104. ... and assorted insults.

You want conversation? Okay: BANG BANG BANG! BANG BANG! (But that may sound like music to some.)

All you have is flummery, so back at you.

Is that what you call "discussion"?

[snort]

114. No. Never did. That was your idea.

[Straw Man]

115. So you're not here for discussion.

Just as I thought.

Do you think we should call it an "insult board" instead of a "discussion board"?

[awoke_in_2003]

17. Three years after

one of the worst days of my life. I had grade school aged grandchildren then, and I have another who started kindergarten this year. And, unfortunately, nothing has changed.

[ManiacJoe]

19. If Lanza's mom had keep the gun safe door secured,

we wound never have heard of them.

[liberalhistorian]

22. If the assault rifle ban had not been

overturned in 1995 (and there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for those not in the military to own one-NONE), we would likely not be talking about and mourning this event.

The numbers of mass shootings and the numbers of victims have increased greatly since the ban was overturned, thanks to the goddamn NRA terrorist organization and the "merchants of death" gun manufacturers.

[ManiacJoe]

23. Connecticut had an "assault weapon" ban at the time. Still does.

Lanza's rifle did not meet the definition of "assault weapon", by fed definition nor by CT definition.

You are confusing "assault weapon" with "assault rifle". They are two different things. Assault rifles are machine guns used by the military. Assault rifles have never been included in any definition of "assault weapon". Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934, ten years before they were invented.

[kcr]

27. If only there were a way to change laws...

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-federal-appeals-court-upholds-connecticut-gun-law-20151019-story.html

[virginia mountainman]

30. It really don't matter what law they pass...

Gun Owners are ignoring it. Seems to be a problem in New York as well.. only 44,000 out of at least a couple of million have not been registered..

http://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/news/ny-safe-act-gun-registration-numbers-low

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/24/425966334/flouting-the-law-some-new-yorkers-wont-register-guns

Only 50,000 were registered in relatively tiny CT... Just a reminder, there are ONLY 1,100 State Troopers in CT.

They have passed laws, that 90+% of gun owners are defiantly ignoring, that most county sheriffs will not enforce.. Very good...Slow Clap...


Chuckles, quite a mess they have made for themselves up their. Write laws that they can't enforce, and whine when people simply start ignoring the law, and "carry on" as before. You know it is bad when folks fearlessly go on TV and state "I WILL NOT COMPLY" .......

So go ahead and pass whatever law you want...It won't matter, the people have decided that they don't care what a suit in a far off city says... And we as a society are worse off for it, when respect for the law starts going down the crapper.

[kcr]

31. Does that apply to all laws? Because people ignore other laws too, all the time.

I wouldn't argue they don't matter, however.

[virginia mountainman]

33. People tend to only follow laws they agree with and make sense to them.

Just look around in your daily life, jaywalking in a rural community? Driving 5 over the speed limit??

I could name many minor laws that get ignored "as matter of course" everyday.

Most people don't need too have laws against killing, or stealing,because they have a set of morals, and that is their guiding principles in life, the law is immaterial to most people in their day to day life, they will not go kill, or steal, even if it was legal.

But when you cross a line, and the law is viewed as "not making any sense what so ever" and "It is my right to own this" you have set in motion a bad turn of events.

Our own government, has long "picked and chose" what laws to enforce. Federal marijuana laws in "marijuana legal states", and "sanctuary cities" right off the top of my head. IF our government can pick and chose, why can't we pick and chose ourselves?

The way the law was written, it DEPENDED on those with the rifles, to dutifully register them, it did not take into account 95% non compliance. It did not take into account most New York Sheriffs being against large portions of the law, and almost completely unwilling to enforce the law http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-response-ny-safe-act

It did not envision some sheriffs REFUSING to even accept registration forms.

So how can New York, even start to enforce it's new tough law? Especially when even the enforcers want no part of it?

Laws only work by consent of the governed, those with the rifles, are the "governed", and about 95% did not consent.

And they still have the rifles, and the sanctity of the law, took a major hit. Why have the law on the books if you can't enforce it?

It would be the highest of folly, to believe that MORE laws would "fix" this situation. They had no problem ignoring ones that made them felons, what more can you do? Execute them?

[kcr]

35. Okay, so I'll put you down for "no laws" Gotcha n/t

[virginia mountainman]

36. Where did I say that?!

I never said that..

I just said, that the NY Safe act, appears to have been a bridge too far in New York. It should be taken note of that a gun control bill, in a very pro gun control state, is a complete and total flop, with almost unanimous non-compliance. Says something about the state of gun control politics in the US.

Most of the gun control laws on the books I agree with, and I can see modifications here and their. Where on earth did you pick up "no laws" from? Is this a way to disengage from a conversation and claim some sort of moral high ground?

This is why it is so hard to discuss these issues today, everyone wants to throw mud, and make things up out of thin air.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[kcr]

37. I'm sorry for misunderstanding

I should have known that people ignore laws is actually a rousing support of the concept of laws. My bad.

[thucythucy]

84. And yet we hear the phrase "law abiding gun owner"

all the time, as justification for making sure guns are kept widely available.

The cognitive dissonance makes my head hurt.

[Straw Man]

85. "Law abiding" as in "not criminals."

And yet we hear the phrase "law abiding gun owner"

all the time, as justification for making sure guns are kept widely available.

The cognitive dissonance makes my head hurt.

What about all the people who went to jail for defying Jim Crow laws in the segregated South? Would you call them "law abiding citizens" or would you call them "criminals"?

Sorry about that cognitive dissonance thing. Expand your mind a bit -- it takes the pressure off.

[thucythucy]

124. So you're comparing reasonable gun regulation

to Jim Crow?

Would that make Wayne LaPierre another Rosa Parks? Ted Nugent another John Lewis?

There isn't a mind expanding chemical in the world could make me see any similarity between the NRA and SNCC.

[Straw Man]

125. Ah, the "R" words ...

So you're comparing reasonable gun regulation

to Jim Crow?

No. However, I suspect we have very different definitions of "reasonable gun regulation."

Would that make Wayne LaPierre another Rosa Parks? Ted Nugent another John Lewis?

No again. Not Wayne or Ted. More like Shaneen Allen and Otis McDonald.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

There isn't a mind expanding chemical in the world could make me see any similarity between the NRA and SNCC.

I recommend trying to expand your mind without the use of chemicals.

[Lorien]

40. Amen

At this point I'm all for all for abolishing the gawddamn second amendment. I own guns, but if the ammosexuals can't be reasoned with then screw them. Let them hump a car or a baseball bat if they're "just as deadly" a their beloved gunz.

[hack89]

92. The 2A allows for the strict regulation of guns

AWBs, registration, universal background checks - all perfectly constitutional.

Stop using the 2A as an excuse for failure.

[AngryOldDem]

83. +1

[hack89]

91. Lanza's gun would have been legal during the AWB

CT has an AWB that is stronger then the old federal AWB - legally Lanza's rifle was not considered an assault weapon in CT.

[riversedge]

74. Photos in remememberance...

JacquiUpNorth ‏@jacquigsmith 20h20 hours ago

@TODAYshow @NaphiSoc Nor in Congress as usual #gunsense How can the GOP claim to be pro life?

[sarge43]

110. ...

Forgive us.

[valerief]

88. Bravo for the truth!

[niyad]

111. kudos to the daily news for the truth